MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The meaning of mobility for residents and staff in long‐term care facilities

2002· article· en· W2155601529 on OpenAlexafffund
E.M. Bourret, Laurie Bernick, Cheryl Cott, Pia Kontos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsFacilitatorNursingFocus groupMetropolitan areaQualitative researchLong-term careFeelingPerspective (graphical)Meaning (existential)Exploratory researchMedicinePerceptionPsychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the physical and psychological effects of decreased mobility have been documented, little is known about what it means to be mobile from the institutionalized elders' perspective. Even less is known about nurses' perceptions regarding institutionalized elders' mobility and about mobility enhancing strategies. AIM: The purpose of this study was to generate knowledge about the phenomenon of mobility from both the nurses' and institutionalized elders' perspective. DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative design was used. Focus groups with residents and nursing staff were conducted in three long-term care facilities in a large metropolitan city in 1998. Ethical approval was received from the ethics committees in all three facilities prior to study implementation. Twenty long-term care facility residents and 15 nursing staff participated in the study. METHODS: A trained facilitator used an interview guide to moderate discussions in which residents' and nurses' opinions and feelings about mobility were solicited. The group responses were tape recorded, transcribed and coded. The codes reflected major concepts or abstractions of the data and emerged from the participants' verbal responses to the research questions. FINDINGS: Both groups identified mobility as being pivotal to the residents' quality of life and well-being. The residents viewed mobility as a means of freedom, choice and independence, and they made great efforts to maintain their mobility. The nurses also valued the importance of mobility and assisted the residents through preparatory care, environmental modifications and encouragement. Factors that related to the residents' willingness to be mobile, environmental barriers and the impact of waiting were compared between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Mobility involves more than the movement from one point to another. The nature of the assistive nurse-client relationship and the resident's subjective perspective must become central to understanding the meaning of mobility for residents in a long-term care facility.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations119
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207